On Fri Apr 18, 12:54pm -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On 18 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0400,
> >> Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> said:
>
> > So, opinions? Yeah, it's kind of gross. But the way things are
> > now is far worse.
>
> As long as /etc/conffiles/managed, /etc/conffiles/unmanaged,
> and /etc/conffiles/default are never themselves unmanaged, this would
> work. And the factory default for /etc/conffiles/default should be
> managed; and the other two files should be empty.
>
> If we standardize on a easy to interpret format for these
> files, I'll add the logic to ucf to handle these directives. (how
> about a configuration file path per line for /etc/conffiles/managed
> and /etc/conffiles/unmanaged, and /etc/conffiles/default contain a
> single word, which is "managed" by default; anything other than
> "unmanaged" is interpreted as "managed?).
Something else worth thinking about, which I was gonna throw in my
example package for all this stuff, is config-file-change priority.
ie: It would be nice to differentiate between "the entire config format
has changed, I will break completely if the old one is used", "some
parameter options have changed; the old ones will still work - for now",
"I just changed some defaults, keep what they have now", and "I fixed a
typo in one of the documentation comments."
We could then respect things like DEBCONF_PRIORITY, and not bother the
user if all we've changed is the spelling of a descriptive (ie: not
example) word in a comment.
Pet peeve of mine in dpkg conffile handling :)